While Gladwell himself is notorious for lack of factual rigor (as a former math person, I especially wince at his "Igon value"), the New Yorker itself is famous for its rigorous fact-checking. In this age of fast-food quality writings littered with half-assed research or mere speculations, I appreciate the time and the effort that the New Yorker team puts into their craft.

At the same time, the New Yorker is indeed known for their over-the-top narratives. There's both pros and cons to this approach. For example, a great work of literary journalism like "In Cold Blood" and "Hiroshima" were first published on the New Yorker because of this editorial tendency. On the other hand, their long-form content makes their subjects less approachable to a large swath of English-reading (especially those who aren't native readers of the language) population.